PRIVATE BUSINESS

Resolved,
	That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Official Account of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005.—[Mr. Watts.]

TREASURY

Vincent Cable: I know that the Chancellor has had a lot on his mind, but has he had time to refresh his memory of the Lisbon agenda, which he inspired, particularly the passage in which he committed himself to take
	"concrete measures . . . to alleviate the tax pressure on labour and especially on the relatively unskilled and unpaid"?
	How does he reconcile that commitment with the striking conclusions of the Treasury Select Committee, which are summarised in a remarkable graphic, that while the Government have made welcome progress in cutting extreme marginal tax rates, the number of workers who now pay marginal tax withdrawal rates of 60 to 70 per cent. has doubled to almost 2 million under his stewardship?

Gordon Brown: When we came to power, because of the way the family credit system worked, people had marginal tax rates of above 100 per cent. Thousands of people had marginal tax rates of above 90 per cent. and 80 per cent. We have eliminated those marginal tax rates, and the hon. Gentleman should give us credit for that. [Interruption.] We have eliminated marginal tax rates above 100 per cent. and 90 per cent., as I said. Has the hon. Gentleman also seen the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that for the average family with two children the effective tax rate for the average earner has fallen from 17 per cent. to 8 per cent. during the course of the Government? That shows that, not only are we relieving child poverty but, by introducing tax credits and a 10p income tax rate and reducing the basic rate of income tax from 23p to 22p, we have been able to help the very people he is talking about. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to have a sensible economic policy, perhaps he will start looking at the changes that he needs to make in his own.

Gordon Brown: I can only quote back to the hon. Gentleman the comment of the chairman of the Conservative party's economic policy commission, who seems to have disappeared from the Tory Benches at Treasury questions. He said:
	"Places like . . . the UK . . . attract"—
	investment—
	"because their tax rates for business are low."
	Not my words, but those of the chairman of the Conservative party economic policy commission, praising us for our competitive tax rates.

Dawn Primarolo: Overpayments are a consequence of a responsive system, under an annual system. Given that a family's final entitlement cannot be known until the end of the year, some end-year adjustment will be necessary. Such adjustments could be avoided only by moving to an entirely fixed system. The 2005 pre-Budget report announced a series of measures to improve tax credits that would reduce overpayments by about a third once they are fully in effect. Overpayments amounted to £2.2 billion in 2003–04. The Public Accounts Committee announced on 25 April that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs estimates that the figure will be similar in 2004–05, and national statistics on tax credit overpayments for 2004–05 will be published on 31 May.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong on that, and he needs to ask the thousands of families in his constituency who are benefiting from tax credits. Some 700,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1998–99. Four in 10 families now pay no net tax, as a result of tax credits. Families are helped with child care. Families are supported in building on their affluence by changing jobs and increasing their hours. Tax credits are a fundamental part of supporting families in a flexible way, and if the hon. Gentleman is proposing to take them away from his constituents, he will hear a very different story from them.

John Healey: We are committed to support biofuels as part of long-term measures to reduce carbon emissions in transport. In the Budget, we announced the extension of the 20p per litre duty discount on biofuels until 2008–09, and we made a range of announcements on a renewable transport fuel obligation, which means that by 2010, 5 per cent. of all fuel sold for roads in the UK will come from renewable sources.

Personal Statement

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and I am sure that this will be the start of a fruitful relationship—[Interruption.] But there are certain matters that I should make clear to him from the outset. I do not get up at 4.30 am to go to the gym, I cannot play the piano and I have absolutely no intention of standing for the presidency of the United States. Having said that, may we have a debate in Government time on Iran? Given the different views within the Government on what action should be taken, such a debate would allow the Foreign Secretary to clarify whether she has changed the Government's position.
	According to a recent report, half of all the children born to parents with learning difficulties are taken into care. This raises concern about the authorities' attitude to those parents. Furthermore, the state's failure to care properly for looked-after children raises concerns about their future. This country's record on looked-after children is a scandal. May we have a debate on the matter?
	May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on advice to primary care trusts about the use of Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer? It was clear from Tuesday's debate that there are still widespread differences in the approaches of different PCTs across the country.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on her new housing development policy, and particularly on why my constituents and those of other hon. Members will not be allowed to object to overdevelopment whereas her constituents will be? We could then ask her what the Government have learned from the recent council elections, which of course saw Labour loose 319 councillors—[Hon. Members: "How many?"] That was 319, for those who did not hear me. And the Conservatives gained 316 new councillors—

London Bombings

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the 7 July bombings.
	I am today publishing the official account on the bombings in London on 7 July last year. Also today the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee into intelligence aspects of the bombings has been published, together with the Government's response. I very much regret the sombre nature of my first statement to the House as Home Secretary. I send my condolences, as the new Home Secretary, to all those who suffered in those events and I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
	The official account published today summarises what we know about the bombers and how and why they did what they did. It is not yet a complete picture, both because we have had to withhold some information for legal and security reasons and because the police investigation is continuing and we may discover more. It will be for the legal process to confirm formally what happened, but as is now well known, there were four suicide attacks carried out by four British citizens. Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. Those attacks killed 52 people over and above the bombers themselves and injured over 700.
	The first three bombs went off simultaneously at 8.50 am on the underground. The first, in a Circle line tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations, was carried out by Tanweer and killed seven people and injured 171. The second, on the Circle line just outside Edgware Road, was carried out by Khan and killed six people and injured 163. The third, on the Piccadilly line between King's Cross and Russell Square, was carried out by Lindsay and killed 26 and injured over 340.
	Just under an hour later at 9.47 am, Hussain detonated the fourth device on a No. 30 bus in Tavistock square. This killed 13 and injured over 110. It remains unclear why Hussain did not detonate his bomb at the same time as the others. It may be that he was frustrated by delays on the underground heading north from King's Cross. However, it now appears that he bought a battery after coming out of the underground system, which could mean that he had difficulty detonating the device earlier. But I stress that this remains speculation at this point.
	We now know from CCTV footage and witness statements that Khan, Tanweer, and Hussain travelled down from Leeds in a hire car that morning and met up with Lindsay in Luton station car park. Further devices were found in one of the cars which may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey down. They do not appear to indicate a fifth bomber and there is no evidence to suggest this elsewhere. The four then travelled from Luton to King's Cross, leaving at 7.40 am and arriving at 8.23 am.
	Owing to some outstanding police and security service work in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, the police were able publicly to confirm the identities of Tanweer and Hussain on 14 July and Khan and Lindsay on 16 July. The key factors leading them to this were finding credit and other cards in the names of the four at the sites—in Khan's case his cards were found at more than one site—Hussain's family calling the police emergency hotline reporting him missing, and subsequently discovering that he had travelled to London with Khan and Tanweer; the discovery by the security service that Khan, and subsequently Tanweer, had been picked up on the periphery of another investigation; the CCTV images of four men with rucksacks matching their descriptions at King's Cross and Luton; and the discovery of the two cars in Luton car park.
	Khan, Tanweer and Hussain were all second-generation British citizens of Pakistani origin from the same small area of Leeds. Lindsay was a British citizen of Jamaican origin who had grown up in Huddersfield and moved to Aylesbury after his marriage. Khan was a well-respected teaching assistant and youth worker, aged 30 at the time of the bombings. Tanweer, who was just 22, had recently left university. Hussain was only 18 and had just completed sixth form college, and Lindsay, who was 19, had left school and had a series of odd jobs thereafter.
	The account which is published today sets out what we know about their early lives and how they may have been radicalised. The picture remains incomplete at this stage, but, with the partial exception of Lindsay, there is little that marks them out as particularly vulnerable to radicalisation and little in their subsequent behaviour which could have given much indication to those around them of their intentions. It is not yet known whether others in the UK were involved in indoctrinating the group or helping them to plan, but Lindsay appears to have been influenced by an extremist preacher who is now serving a prison sentence. Their motivation appears to have been a mixture of anger at perceived injustices by the west against Muslims and a desire for martyrdom.
	The account that we publish today also details what we know about influence from abroad. Khan is known to have made a number of trips to Pakistan, including one in July 2003 when he is believed to have had some relevant training. Khan and Tanweer travelled together to Pakistan between November 2004 and February 2005 and are assessed as likely to have met al-Qaeda figures during this visit. There were a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings. We do not know their content. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for launching the attacks, but the extent of its involvement is unclear.
	Shortly after the second Pakistan trip—the trip from November 2004 to February 2005—the group appear to have begun planning in earnest. They appear to have assembled the devices at 18 Alexandra grove, a flat in another part of Leeds. As far as experts can establish, the bombs were made with ingredients that are readily commercially available, and to have required only limited expertise to assemble. The operation appears to have been self-financed and the cash raised by methods that would be extremely difficult to identify as related to terrorism or other serious criminality. Our best estimate is that the operation cost less than £8,000 overall.
	The account published today does not address the emergency response, but it is right that I should place on record my thanks and admiration for the bravery of so many—the police, those working on the underground, buses and trains, medical staff, firefighters, disaster recovery teams, volunteers and ordinary people, including and perhaps especially the survivors. The Government have separately conducted a lessons learned exercise addressing many aspects of the emergency response, and we will publish the results shortly. The London Assembly's inquiry, due to report soon, is also considering this.
	I now turn to the Intelligence and Security Committee report. The Committee is, of course, independent of Government, but it has had access to a wide range of highly classified documents. Its report assesses what was known prior to July, how the threat level and alert state systems operated, how the threat was assessed, and issues of coverage, resources and co-operation between the security and intelligence agencies and between the agencies and the police. The House will obviously wish to give it serious consideration. The Prime Minister has presented to Parliament today the Government's response to the report, which generally welcomes its conclusions.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), as Chairman of the Committee, has spoken in more detail about the report this morning, but I note first that the report sets out that the security service had come across two of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, on the margins of other investigations. On the basis of what was then known, the security service made the judgement that they were peripheral to the main investigation and there was no intelligence to suggest that they were separately interested in planning an attack against the UK. Although limited attempts were made at that stage to identify the two men, the security service decided to concentrate its resources on higher priorities, including plots known at that time to attack the UK. The ISC report concludes that this decision was understandable.
	Secondly, the report concludes that it was not unreasonable to reduce the country threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" in May last year on the grounds that there was no intelligence of a current credible plot to attack the UK at that time. The term "substantial" still represented a high level of threat, and the report concludes that that reduction was unlikely to have altered the alertness of the responders or to have affected the chances of preventing the 7 July attacks. None the less, the Committee recommends changes to the system. The Government have reviewed it and will be making changes to create a simpler, more flexible and more proportionate system.
	The report makes a number of other useful recommendations, which we have addressed in the Government response. It also covers the issue of resourcing, which I will address in a moment. I am grateful to the Committee for its very thorough and constructive approach.
	What the official account and the ISC report demonstrate is the very real challenge that the police and the agencies face in combating this new kind of terrorism. The bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, far less of violent intention. At least three were apparently as well integrated as anyone else. Their radicalisation, to the extent that we know how and where it happened, appears to have been conducted away from places with any obvious association with extremism.
	The willingness of the men to use suicide bombing as their method and to attack vulnerable, civilian targets—as is familiar from previous attacks—made them doubly difficult to defend against. That is not a comfortable message, but it is important that we are honest about it if we are to defend ourselves against the threat effectively.
	The key lesson—this is at the heart of the Government's counter-terrorist strategy—is that the response needs to be collective, with Government, Parliament, police, agencies, local communities, faith leaders and international co-operation all playing their part, and that it needs to be completely comprehensive.
	We have a counter-terrorism strategy for achieving that, known as "Contest", which aims to reduce the risk from international terrorism. As part of the strategy, we are seeking to prevent terrorism by stopping young people being indoctrinated into extremist violence. In that, we need the help of Muslim leaders and the community to fight the distortion of Islam that turns young people into terrorists. We have taken new powers to criminalise encouragement to terrorism. We need to work together to show that democracy is the only legitimate means of changing policies, and to ensure that all young people in all communities can see how engagement in British society can bring about change for the better. I know that my predecessor as Home Secretary led an extensive round of consultations with all sections of the Muslim community, and I intend to develop that.
	Secondly, we need an effective and adequately resourced law enforcement and intelligence effort. The ISC report suggests that we might have had a better chance of preventing the July attacks if more resources had been in place sooner. Even that, of course, would have been no guarantee of preventing the attack. The Government have put in substantially increased resources, particularly since 9/11. Further resources were provided last autumn. The Security Service is expanding as fast as its top management believes is organisationally possible.
	The specific police budget for counter-terrorism will have grown fourfold between the financial years 2002–03 and 2007–08—that is, in the period after 9/11. We have allocated £30 million extra next year and £60 million the year after to expand special branch and other specialist counter-terrorism capacity outside London. Indeed, the total cross-Government budget for counter terrorism and resilience has more than doubled, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the same period.
	In addition, general policing makes a significant contribution to the counter-terrorist effort. We will implement neighbourhood policing in all forces by next April and will expand the number of community support officers from around 6,500 to 16,000 in that period. That will improve our capacity to gather local intelligence to support the counter-terrorist element.
	In that context, I want to put it on the record that the police and agencies have disrupted many attacks against the UK since 9/11, including three since last July alone. However, the reality is that difficult choices have to be made between priorities in intelligence-led operations, whatever the level of resources.
	Thirdly, we need effective international co-operation. This is both a local and a global threat. We are a long way from being the only targets. As the House will know, there have been appalling attacks in the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and Indonesia, to name but a few. We need to have the closest possible law enforcement and intelligence links with our many allies in the war against global terrorism.
	We also need rapidly to develop European co-operation. The former Home Secretary made that his key priority for the UK presidency last year. He achieved important concrete outcomes, including common provisions on the retention of telecommunications data that will make it more difficult for terrorists to communicate across borders to plan their crimes. I will make it a major priority of mine to develop that co-operation further.
	The bombings were despicable attacks on ordinary people going about their normal daily business. It is a tribute to Londoners—the people of our capital city—that the city recovered with such remarkable speed. The victims have shown tremendous courage in rebuilding their lives, but I know that many victims, and particularly bereaved families, are still trying to find their own way to come to terms with what, for them, was a terrible personal tragedy. I think that it is right that we try to explain what the Government know about what happened that day, and I hope that many of the victims will find the account that we have published today helpful.
	I know that some will find it painful to relive those terrible events again, and that some will continue to feel that there should be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for supporting victims. In the short period that I have been Home Secretary, and before that, she has explained to me the strong views that some of the families hold on that subject. I find that perfectly understandable, but the House will know that my predecessor as Home Secretary explained last year why the Government had decided that it was not right to hold such an inquiry, a decision with which I concur. However, I should like to offer some further explanation to those most directly affected.
	I shall therefore be writing to all those who were bereaved by the 7 July attacks to offer them the chance to come and talk the issue through. I and my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary will convene a series of meetings, at which families will be able to ask detailed questions about the documents that have been published today. At those meetings, I hope that I will be able to explain to them why I do not think a public inquiry would be the best step to take. Not least among the reasons is that such an inquiry would involve diverting very precious resources needed for the security and protection of everyone, at a critical time.
	As Home Secretary, my principal duty is to protect the public. I am determined that we will learn the lessons from the official account and ISC report, and strengthen our defences against the terrorist threat, but international terrorism will not be defeated by the security services, the police or the Government acting alone. It will be beaten only by all of us in this country working together to defeat what is a threat to us all. That is what all of us must achieve together.

John Reid: No, not the integrity; the right hon. Gentleman did not question that, but he felt that the ISC was limited by statute and so forth.
	I merely point out, in the same spirit of generosity with which he welcomed me, that the scope, remit and statute under which the ISC was established was defined not by this Government, but by the Conservative Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. Secondly, the reason for public inquiries, including the Franks inquiry, prior to the establishment of the ISC, was precisely because of the absence of such a scrutiny Committee. It was appropriate for the ISC to be given the task. It is independent of the Government and values its independence. To the best of my knowledge, it has been given as much assistance, aid and leeway as possible, and I believe that it has produced a very useful report.
	Let me turn to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. It was legitimate for him to raise them, and I will answer insofar as I can, without intruding into areas that affect operational matters. His first point was about several newspaper stories on the four bombers. As to the Tanweer story, relating to what happened a month before 7/7, I am told by the Security Service that it has no record of that allegation, so I do not think that there is a factual basis to it.
	What is known is that there was some peripheral intelligence of two of the bombers in connection with another investigation. So far as I can understand from paragraph 45, on page 14, from all the relevant intelligence material and the from independent scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a judgment was made on whether the actions and assessments of the Security Service were understandable and correct at the time. The report confirms that the Security Service came across two individuals, who were subsequently identified as Khan and Tanweer, on the peripheries of another investigation. However, I should mention three heavy caveats.
	First, it was only after 7 July that the Security Service was able fully to identify the two men, given the massive concentration of resources then transferred. Secondly, there was no intelligence at the time that these men were interested in planning an attack on the UK in the UK. That is specifically alluded to on page 13, in paragraph 43 of the ISC report. Thirdly, the intelligence at the time did indeed suggest a focus, but either on training and insurgency operations outside the country in Pakistan, in which the men might be interested, or on fraud. In relation to the investigation at the time, it was peripheral to what was regarded as a bigger and more important operation. It is in that light, on that important subject—I accept that it is an important and legitimate one for the right hon. Gentleman to raise—that the ISC says
	"we conclude that, in the light of the other priority investigations being conducted and the limitations on Security Service resources, the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".
	Incidentally, officers followed up a report on the third bomber, Jermaine Lindsay, because again there was a peripheral connection to another case—of aggravated burglary—but it was only established later that the contact telephone number was on file.
	I dealt with that matter in some measure, because the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point. I shall turn to resources, which he also mentioned. I covered them earlier, but in the period after 9/11 until 2007–08, there has been a quadrupling of the resources available to the police and counter-terrorism. In the same period, across Government, there has been a doubling of resources for counter-terrorism and resilience, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion. At any given stage, there are physical limitations on what can be achieved, because of difficulties in recruitment, skills identification, training and so on. It is not merely a matter of applying resources and bringing in lots of people without relevant skills.
	Let me give two quotes. The director general of the Security Service told the ISC:
	"What we are trying to do is the maximum we think we can bear in terms of recruitment, training, vetting, expansion, scale, new officers, a big northern operations centre . . . it is a very challenging programme."
	In other words, according to the director general, the limitations are not the resources being allocated but the fact that the service cannot expand any faster.
	At paragraph 140 of the report, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, C, said:
	"If you try to bring in more than a certain number of new people every year you can literally bust the system . . . you can only tolerate a certain number of inexperienced people dealing with very sensitive subjects."
	On al-Qaeda, there are circumstantial links, some of which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out: the recording of the video, the Khan reference to al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility and so on. There are assumptions and speculations about contacts. The ISC report says:
	"The extent to which the 7 July attacks were externally planned directed or controlled by contacts in Pakistan or elsewhere remains unclear."
	That is what I said at the beginning. The matter is still under investigation. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence, but I do not think there is anything that would merit my saying at this stage that there is conclusive evidence that the attack was planned in advance rather than being claimed as a success afterwards, ex post facto, by al-Qaeda.

Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill

Confident Consumers

Ian McCartney: I understand that the Department for Education and Skills is consulting on that. Also, one of the key elements of the fire service review is a preventive strategy whereby fire services work with local communities, community groups, local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors to improve fire prevention and knowledge of it.
	Both in opposition and government, I ran the campaign for the regulation of the security industry. The regulation of security companies operating in pubs, clubs and shops, and in the private and public sector, has resulted in new training for security staff and has led to many improvements. It has tackled organised crime's attempts to infiltrate a legitimate industry, rooting out dangerous and violent criminals who were a direct risk to actual or potential customers. It has ensured that people have a career structure, are better trained and have an opportunity to work in a good industry, and it has protected good companies from cowboys. Sadly, the Conservatives, for 10 years in government, refused to support the campaign.
	The Government's commitment to consumers is clear. We have a proud record of providing greater protection for consumers, appropriate regulation for business and tough action against rogues who bully and rip off some of the most vulnerable in society. Today, I want to set out how we take that work to the next level. Before I do so, let me make clear Labour's manifesto commitment that we will
	"continue to work to protect the rights of consumers".
	It is a matter of record that the Conservative party proposed at the last election to axe 80 per cent. of the staff in the DTI, the very Department that deals with consumer affairs. It was not one of that party's greater ideas. It is odds-on that we will see a flip-flop on the matter before too long.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) is here today, and it was not until I saw him come into the Chamber that I realised that he would be answering for the Opposition. I notice that he has said a lot to the Federation of Small Businesses. He said:
	"We need to have a radical rethink about this"—
	the DTI—
	"as far as I am concerned all options are on the table, including the abolition of the DTI."
	That was in March 2006. My worry was that he went on to say, after questioning that
	"the SBS is one of those things that is very good at Westminster or Whitehall level but means diddly squat to someone trying to run a shop in the real world."
	The Small Business Service was established because small business asked us to do it. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment has seen growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in the economy at all levels. Under the Conservatives, a business failed every two minutes.

Ian McCartney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I visit the Yorkshire and Humberside region in the next few months, I would be happy for him to join me in looking at Consumer Direct. I shall set out some of the facts to which he has alluded, which are important.
	We will need to ensure that Consumer Direct is not just value for money but gives appropriate advice. Let me describe some of the things that it has done in that regard. Consumer Direct has handled nearly 1.5 million calls since its launch. It currently receives 25,000 calls per week across England, Scotland and Wales. I can list the five most common complaints from consumers in 2005: 42 per cent. concerned defective goods, 17.8 per cent. concerned sub-standard service, 8 per cent. concerned misleading claims, 6.6 per cent. concerned delivery, collection and repairs and 3.7 per cent. concerned prices. One of the products that attracted most complaints was the second-hand car. Some things never change.
	People clearly like Consumer Direct. A recent customer satisfaction survey reported that 87 per cent. of callers were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. Eight out of 10 callers now feel confident about dealing with similar problems should they occur in future. Because of Consumer Direct, an extra 350,000 people will have access to clear practical advice this year. That means total benefits to consumers through advice on sorting out their problems—for example, money saved on repairs and replacements and through refunds—of at least £135 million.
	As well as educating consumers and giving them information, we are trying to improve consumer advocacy. That is why earlier in the year we announced plans to set up a new consumer body called Consumer Voice to bring together the National Consumer Council and some sectoral consumer bodies, including Energywatch and Postwatch, to represent the interests of consumers across markets and to offer the best possible consumer protection.
	We have also proposed new ombudsman schemes in energy and postal services to deal with consumer complaints when companies have not provided satisfactory resolution, and to provide redress where necessary. The new schemes will be able to enforce the resolution of consumer complaints on companies, and provide compensation. That means that service providers will need to take proper responsibility for resolving consumer complaints.An ombudsman scheme that charges companies per complaint will provide directive incentives for companies to do that. Such schemes already operate in the telecoms and financial services sectors, and we want to build on that good practice and extend it to other sectors.

Ian McCartney: I am happy to do so, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who deals with employment rights. The issues are covered by the legislation on the national minimum wage—[Interruption.] My point is that we have a regulatory regime to protect home workers—

Ian McCartney: The resources are there. Mistakes are made on occasion, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the travel industry, knows that. My God, many a holiday has been spoiled by a technical mistake. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have now registered and have a career. I am sure that they have. Over the years many of my constituents have just had to say goodbye to their holiday. We will come back to that because it is a good tale to tell about that industry too. Mistakes can and do happen, unfortunately. We have lots of regimes so that whenever there is a mistake, there is a remedy for it—not just a legal or financial remedy. The big issue is getting cultural change within business systems and organisations to prevent mistakes in the first place. Rather than a remedy afterwards, prevention is always the best policy. Where that breaks down because of human or business frailty, whether public or private business failure, there must be a remedy. In my speech today I have tried to set out a framework, showing the Government's ambition to make this a world-class regime. I hope that by taking it step by step that is exactly what will happen.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues. On the national health service I can well remember coming here and agitating on behalf of constituents who were waiting for heart operations or cataract operations, not for 18 months, but two years. Across the country constituents were waiting for nine months, 12 months, 18 months or two years. There was chaos. An average wait in hospital during the winter months under the Conservatives could be 20, 21, 22 or 24 hours. Take your pick. There have been substantial changes in the NHS. It is a good news story. Thank goodness we won the last election. The hon. Gentleman supported a manifesto to take at least £1 billion a year out of the NHS and hand it as a subsidy to those who already had private health care.
	The Government have an absolute commitment, and I hope that the Conservative party will do a flip-flop and support it. We have promised end to end 18 weeks from seeing your GP to having a successful operation. We have made that promise, and it will happen. In the interim, across Britain, you now have a choice to go to another hospital if you cannot get the service at your local one. That includes if necessary attending a private hospital as an NHS patient, receiving treatment free at the point of use based on your medical need. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford may complain and grumble, but his hon. Friends raised the matter on the basis that NHS patients are consumers—

Ian McCartney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I stick to what I said. All the new local bureaux services being rolled out across the country are funded directly. The national organisation redistributes the resources that the Government make available, according to where the money is needed. No one would expect the Government to meddle in that. The partnership agreement requires that the national organisation distributes resources and provides services in a way that achieves value for money, but local funding is provided, by agreement, where that is deemed to be more suitable. We are committed to the massive new local investment that I described, and the organisation has made it clear that it is delighted at the huge increase in its capacity to deal with clients in local communities and to help vulnerable people who get into unnecessary debt.
	I know that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has to be able to tell the people in his local CAB that he has put their case. I accept that he makes a genuine point as, from time to time, I have to put the case for my local bureau with my local authority, but I think that I have responded to it. The Government are spending millions of pounds at both local and national level, and will continue to do so.
	I shall not read out the stuff on package travel for the hon. Member for Wellingborough, as I got diverted. However, I shall write to him with the details, which I shall place in the Library for other colleagues to see.
	Finally, I turn to my—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) makes a remark from a sedentary position, even though he has not contributed to the debate. I am trying to answer the questions that have come up. I know that he thinks that I have been here too long, but that was an unfair comment to make.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised a number of issues. I can assure him absolutely that I and the Government are absolutely neutral about how the review of Sunday trading should be conducted. If he reads Hansard, he will see how complex the issues are. I have made it very clear that the Government want to be pro-business, small or large, and that we also want to be on the side of the people who work in those businesses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central asked about service workers. I used to be one: I know that service workers need to be properly respected by employers and customers alike, and I have supported the campaign to secure that respect. Millions of pounds are going into training these vulnerable workers through the trade union learning fund and other training services provided by the Government. The national minimum wage has been a big boost to service workers and will continue to help them.
	The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB, which was at the conference yesterday, are part and parcel of the core groups that we are consulting over the future of Sunday trading. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that USDAW held its first awards ceremony for service workers at the Radisson hotel in Manchester airport—I am always pleased to get in a plug for that airport—and I participated in the presentations there. It was a wonderful occasion, because many ordinary men and women do extraordinary things, but are never recognised. They are not film or sport stars, but each and every day they go to work with a smile on their face to provide a service. Sometimes they get abused, so thank goodness USDAW has the skill, the guile and the knowledge to recognise these extraordinary people for their huge contributions to the community and the British economy.
	The United Utilities company has been transformed over the last few years. I recognise what was said about some of the difficulties, but United Utilities has recently announced a multi-billion pound investment programme on sewer water flooding, for example. John Roberts, the chief executive who has just retired, transformed the company and I am assured that the new chief executive will further transform it, improve customer services and invest its capital and revenue resources to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central will recognise that.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised a number of questions and I assure him that he will receive replies. Any replies that are non-specific will be placed in the Library, so all hon. Members attending the debate will be able to assess whether the responses that I have given are accurate.
	After a very good debate, I want to stress the positive point that the Government intend to create a world-class regime by the date that I set out. It will benefit business and consumers and will make it clear to those who want to operate scams that we will deal with them. We will deal with those who want to carry out illegal money lending; we will deal with those who want to damage communities by their activities.
	I hope that, after our debate, a consensus will emerge on the road that we are taking. A country with appropriate regulation can ensure that business grows and that, when it does, it is not hindered by cowboy organisations. If any cowboys are providing services in which consumers are badly treated or ill informed, the Government and the state will be on the side of consumers. That is my final point. However long I am in this job as Minister with responsibility for consumers, I am going to be on the consumers' side—not just on Monday or Tuesday, but seven days a week, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, including leap years.

Rod Licences (Border Esk)

David Mundell: I hope to suggest a set of proposals that will commend themselves not just to the Minister but to the Environment Agency, as he tells me that he cannot tell the Environment Agency what to do. Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that has arisen recently: the Environment Agency's capacity to prosecute those who do not have rod licences through the Scottish courts, when its framework is geared for England and Wales. I will refer to that later. There have been some recent instances of prosecutions that have not been proceeded with, and although the Environment Agency claims that it has the right and ability to proceed with those prosecutions, the suggestion is that it has drawn back because the law may be over-complex. Again, that reinforces in my mind the need for a solution that can commend itself to all interested parties.
	I cannot accept, however, that is it equitable that a rod licensing regime should apply to the Esk when one is not applied to any other river in Scotland and, as I have just indicated, there is no plan to introduce any. None of the issues that have been raised by the Environment Agency justify the introduction of the licensing regime. Indeed, I find the issue of the costs and recovery of costs a particularly ironic one, since so much money must have been spent on dealing with the local dispute and the questions and correspondence from myself and others, that the sum raised through the licences cannot come even close to the cost of introducing them.
	My preference today would be for the Minister to announce that the Environment Agency has indicated that it has thought again and will not now continue to proceed with the rod licensing regime on the Esk.
	However, having received his letter and the Environment Agency briefing, and having pursued this matter over many years, I am realistic enough to know that that is not likely to happen. As was the case when I met the Minister, I am genuinely seeking a solution within the legislation that will allow the Environment Agency to meet what I consider to be its tick-box requirements, but which will also allow my constituents to fish on the River Esk without making the payments that others in Scotland do not have to make, without individual rod licence payments and without fear of prosecution.
	The solution that I suggest is one that I raised during my meeting with the Minister on 12 October. It has been the subject of discussions in the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. It would allow a form of general licence to be granted to the association. That provision is allowed under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That could allow any angler, including a child or pensioner, with a valid Esk and Liddle Improvement Association fishing permit to be covered by the general licence granted to the association. Of course, any angler who does not have a valid fishing permit from the association would not be covered by the exemption and would have to have a rod licence. I accept that if we are going to have rod licences, that would be the case.
	The Environment Agency briefing anticipates that request by pointing out that a general licence is not usually an alternative to a charging scheme, and fees are based on the number of people who would wish to fish under the licence. However, the Act also makes it clear, as a special provision, that the Environment Agency has the power to waive rod licence duty when it deems that there is a special case. What more special case could there be than a river that is physically in another jurisdiction and is the only one flowing outwith England and Wales within the remit of the Environment Agency? The Border Esk is like no other river under the control of the Environment Agency and so I believe that it falls within the definition of a special case in the legislation. That would allow the general licence to be granted without the payment of a fee.
	The Environment Agency is very keen on the letter of the law, and there can be no doubt that the legislation makes provision to enable it to waive the fee for a general rod licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. That would provide a solution that would meet the Environment Agency's stated requirement that the rod licensing regime should apply on the river, but it would also ensure that local anglers on the River Esk were treated the same as other anglers in Scotland in relation to the payment of rod licensing fees.
	I would have hoped that the Minister and the Environment Agency would welcome the association's efforts to encourage fishing among young people by a favourable licensing policy for that group, and for retired people too, to allow them to continue to participate in angling. Those initiatives are to be welcomed, not stifled by petty bureaucracy. Only last week, the Environment Agency said how important fishing was in diverting young people from antisocial behaviour. Apparently, the agency hopes to attract 200,000 extra young people to the sport by 2015. According to the statement to the media on the matter, all those extra 200,000 people are to be in England and Wales. If one reads Environment Agency documents, one realises that they generally make no recognition of the Border Esk. Clearly, that reflects the reality that the Border Esk is an anomaly in the Environment Agency. That is another reason why it is a special case and should be treated differently.
	One thing that must come out of the situation is a review of the way in which the Environment Agency has conducted itself. It has been a public relations disaster, which surely has been to no one's benefit. I was a little surprised that the Minister's letter of 3 November 2005 to Baroness Young stated:
	"We (and no doubt you) would regard approaches to the press on the lines of 'MUNDELL GETS DEFRA/EA TO BACK OFF OVER ROD LICENCE DUTIES ON THE BORDER ESK' as entirely inappropriate".
	For me, the issue has been about getting not headlines, but a fair and equitable situation on the Esk. No one is more disappointed than I am that headlines have been easy to obtain. Adverse headlines have appeared about the Environment Agency, such as the latest in the Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser of 27 April, which read: "Esk Fishing Licence Cases Are Dropped." I would prefer to move towards a solution to the problem.
	I am at an absolute loss to understand how the Environment Agency believes that it has benefited from not carrying out effective communication with stakeholders on the Scottish part of the Border Esk and why it thought that a brusque and unrelentingly strident line would achieve its goals. Even in the letter that was faxed to me from the Minister this morning, the Environment Agency says that it wants undertakings about the way in which it will be portrayed in any future discussions on the matter. I am sure that those undertakings can and will be given, but the requirement seems to strike at the heart of the issue. The agency has been more worried about the way in which it is perceived than about fishing on the Esk. At the same time, its stock, rather than the fishing stock, has plummeted. That is why I hope that the agency can now move forward without any baggage and discuss the proposal that I have put on the table this evening of a general licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association with no fee under the special case provision.
	Whether or not I get the response for which my constituents would hope, it has been extremely important to put the issue and their concerns once again on public record. I express my gratitude for the opportunity of doing so and await with interest what the Minister has to say.

10 May 2006: In col. 430 for Mr. Grieve read Mr. Garnier.